Paul Dean practices in the field of Business & Property law and has over 24 years of experience at the Bar.
Prior to the Bar he qualified as a solicitor at Eversheds (Birmingham) and practised there for 5 years.
His first degree was in the world of engineering. That gives him helpful technical and practical knowledge of disputes involving engineering and technology.
In addition, he has a keen interest in cases involving IT and financial services.
Paul practices the following areas:
Paul has a lot of experience acting for or against financial institutions (as dictated by the Cab Rank rule). Over the years his cases have involved:-
Reported cases include:
Nautch Ltd and Others v Mortgage Express and Walker Singleton (Property Management) Ltd [2012] EWHC 4136 (Ch)
Acted for 20 claimants (forming a buy to let property portfolio) in a trial concerning the lawfulness of the appointment of LPA receivers. Established a breach of equitable duty to the borrower (cf. lender). Costs order approached globally, despite there being 20 individual claimants (but with common ownership).
Mortgage Express v Loi and Loi [2011] EWHC 4048 (Ch)
A declaratory relief for subrogated rights arising from negligent conveyancing on a remortgage of a freehold title which overlooked the existing of a lease.
Earles v Barclays Bank plc [2010] Bus LR 566
Want of authority case. Mr Earles lost. However, the bank’s costs order was reduced by 50% for failing to provide e-disclosure properly. No adverse inference made as there was no evidence of deliberate spoliation.
Unreported notable cases include:
Judicial review against the Financial Ombudsman Service in respect of a case with an impact on hundreds of complainants. Preparing Pre-Action Protocol letter of claim grounds, application for permission and submissions. Resolved successfully by consent before application adjudicated upon.
Acting for a high street bank in a case involving a Freeman on the Land who had obtained a witness summons against the bank’s CEO;
High Court trial to recover over 2m lent to a property developer;
Alleged fraud by a senior corporate bank manager for converting an unsecured and unauthorised company overdraft into a personal liability of the shareholder;
Advising on the enforcement of a personal guarantee in circumstances where there had been prior settlement with a co-guarantor; and
Advice and assistance with a variety of mortgage mis-selling claims (court and ombudsman).
In addition to his Specialised Practice Areas, Paul’s practise includes the following:-
He has experience of cases involving:-
Notable cases include:
Douglas Wemyss v Sameer Karim and Douglas Wemyss LLP [2014] EWHC 292 (QB):
Sale and purchase of a solicitor’s practice. The case concerned a claim for the non payment of deferred consideration which was met with a substantial counterclaim. The trial took 9 days.
Hamed v Stevens [2013] EWCA Civ 911:
Conflict of laws (foreign land – Egypt) relating to purchase monies going astray.
Bruce v Gartlan, Hartill and Others [2011] EWHC 4047 (Ch):
Trial to determine the beneficial ownership of shares. The claim was based upon s.125 Companies Act 2006 (rectification of the register).
Paul has extensive experience in field of partnership law.
Chambers and Partners UK 2017 (partnership) says:
“He has one of the best junior partnership practices in Birmingham and is more experienced in it than anyone else I know: a go-to man for partnership.”.
“Always a port of call for me: I trust him when it comes to partnership law and he’s involved in the big cases.”
Paul’s Partnership experience has included:-
Paul’s Company experience has included:-
Notable cases include:
Khan v Mohammed [2009] EWHC 125 (Ch):
Whether a partnership existed and what share of the beneficial interest of a commercial property did it own.
Till v Morris, 22nd December 2011 (Westlaw), CLMD [2012] C.L. 219:
The absolute right of a partner to inspect partnership books and records contrasted with obligations of a party to disclose documents. Providing safeguards where inspection of office holder files was required.
Singh v Anand [2007] EWHC 3346 (Ch):
Whether a 10 minute conversation in 1981 established a trust over two issued shares for the benefit of two and one contingent beneficiary. Constructive trusts. Proprietary estoppel. Sections 53(2) and 53(1)(c) LPA 1925. Engine of fraud: Rochefoucauld.
Singh v Anand, Lawtel 19/10/2006
Funding injunction.
Chahal v Mahal [2005] EWCA Civ 898
When a dissolution occurred and how that affected limitation.
Chahal v Mahal [2005] EWHC 2859 (Ch)
Whether or not there was a partnership existed or a loan.
Paul has substantial experience in Insolvency. He is trusted by insolvency solicitors and insolvency practitioners alike with a range of insolvency work for companies and individuals.
He accepts work on the Licensed Access basis.
He has had work published in Insolvency Intelligence (peer reviewed) and Corporate Rescue and Insolvency.
He also has experience of insolvency injunctions in the context of:-
Notable cases include:
Re: Husky Group Limited (in liquidation) [2015] B.P.I.R. 184:
A significant case concerning:-
Re: Brown Bear Foods [2014] EWHC 1132:
Provisional liquidator was appointed instead of an administrator
Re: Reflex Recordings Ltd [2013] EWHC 4514 (Ch):
Costs – freezing injunction and administration order.
Re: Safehosts [2013] BCC 721:
Provisional liquidator was appointed instead of an administrator;
Wesellcnc.Com Limited [2013] EWHC 4577 (Ch):
The statutory declaration of solvency required for a MVL was delivered late. Therefore, the MVL was actually a CVL: s.90. Just before the liquidation ended, the defect was noticed. An application was made for directions: s.166. However, that was late. The court granted an extension of time using: IR4.3. It also granted retrospective sanction and dispensed with the need to call a creditors’ meeting.
Re: James Dolman & Company Ltd [2010] EWHC 3950 (Ch):
A trial acting for the liquidator. Transactions at an undervalue, knowing receipt, constructive trust and restitution.
Re: Plants to Go Ltd [2009] EWHC 3915 (Ch):
A retrospective administration order in the context of a pre-pack sale of assets
Paul has relevant experience of IT law in the following areas:-
Paul’s professional negligence experience over the years includes claims concerning:-
"Paul is able to digest the detail of a matter with speed and offer great commercial advice. He articulates arguments clearly, with precision and persuasive force, adjusting the tone and persuasive force, adjusting the tone and delivery to suit the audience. Paul's ability to dissect complex legal issues, identify the strongest points, and anticipate counterarguments is vital."
"Paul Dean is practical and very good on his feet. He's a previous solicitor and so understands matters that most counsel don't."
"Paul is excellent in seeing the wood for the trees. He is focused, robust, eloquent, concise and convincing in court."
"Paul Dean is always very detailed and well prepared."
"Paul is tenacious, well-prepared, thorough, and technically excellent with the clients. His written and verbal advice is fantastic, and his advocacy is well-structured, planned and strategically thought through."
"Paul pays great attention to detail and has an impressive memory of the facts and is able to make points in simple ways with many examples. He has always been approachable and gives clear instructions. He is highly reliable and offers great support in times of difficulty."
"He is an out-and-out specialist in partnership law and is very up to speed on partnerships." "Paul has great attention to detail and is very approachable and always readily available to discuss cases when needed."
"Very approachable and always readily available to discuss case when needed."
"He is hugely focused and is able to drill down into a raft of evidence with surgical precision. He has a near prophetic view of the next important moves."
"Focused on the details but avoids being drawn into the irrelevant aspects of cases."
"Personable, thorough and knowledgeable, he ticks all the boxes."
